1994 PLP 72 (PLC)
COTTON EXPORT CORPORATION PEOPLE EMPLOYEES' UNION OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI Versus M/s. COTTON EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI
| Citation | 1994 PLP 72 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | COTTON EXPORT CORPORATION PEOPLE EMPLOYEES' UNION OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI Versus M/s. COTTON EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 72 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 72 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 72 (PLC) (COTTON EXPORT CORPORATION PEOPLE EMPLOYEES' UNION OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI Versus M/s. COTTON EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Khan for Appellant,
- M. Rafat Osmani for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 22nd August,. 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 32(1‑A) & 44‑‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 10‑C‑‑‑Bonus‑‑‑Payment of‑‑ Employees' Union served on employers a `Charter of Demands' demanding bonus at rate of four gross salaries in addition to bonus under S.O. 10‑C of Ordinance of 1968‑‑‑Negotiations, having failed, Union gave strike notice‑‑ Matter was taken before Conciliator, but with no effect‑‑‑Activities of employers being in nature of State monopoly, question of matching demands and grants with comparable concerns, did not arise at all‑‑‑Record showed that in preceding year, Corporation had suffered a loss in its business‑‑‑Settlement had already been arrived at between parties according to which no further demand of any financial implication could be raised during subsistence of that settlement‑‑‑Demand of payment of additional bonus raised during subsistence of settlement between parties was rightly refused by employers. Employees' Union v. Holy Family Hospital and another 1975 PLC 118 ref.
Judgment & Decree
5. Muhammad Sadiq Abbasi, General Secretary appeared on behalf of the petitioners and Bilal Muhammad Akhtar, General Manager, Internal Audit Department of the respondent Corporation appeared on behalf of the respondents.
6. The Labour Court, for the reasons given by it, dismissed the petition resulting in this appeal.
7. The activities of the respondents being in the nature of State monopoly, the question of matching the demands and grants with comparable concerns does not arise at all. The record also shows that in the preceding year (i.e. 198,1‑82) the respondent had suffered a loss in their business. However, the table of the profits and the award of bonus from the year 1979 to 1983 is before us, being as follows: "Financial Year Amount in Million Bonus 1979‑80, profit before Tax Rs.151.124 1 Gross, 2 Basic 1980‑81, profit before Tax Rs.723.429 2 Gross, 2 basic 1981‑82, Loss before Tax: Rs.237.307 NIL 1982‑83, profit before Tax Rs.76.685 1 Gross, 1 basic 1983‑84, profit before Tax Rs.45.890 1 Gross, only." With that as a yardstick before us it cannot be said that the appellant had been given an unfair deal for the period in question.
8. However, what goes to the root of the case is the finality clause in the settlement which is in the following words: (a).................................................................................................... ..................... (b) The union undertakes and agrees that, during the period this settlement is in force, it shall not raise, submit or pursue any demand including any demand of the nature coveted by this settlement or having any direct or indirect financial bearing or implication on the part of the Management in any form or forms during currency of this agreement."
9. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Khan, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the settlement was arrived at before the award of the bonus and therefore it will not attract the mischief of section 44 of I.R.O. I am afraid the contention is rather tenous because looking to the language of the clause referred to above, any sort of demand with any financial implication could not be raised during the subsistence of the settlement which was to end on 15‑9‑1983. Reference may be made to a decision of this Tribunal given by its first Chairman the Late Mr. Justice Inamullah Khan in the case of Employees' Union v. Holy Family Hospital and another 1975 PLC 118.
10. I am, therefore, of the opinion that there is no substance in the appeal. Accordingly I will affirm the order of the Labour Court and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2230/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.